Great conversation, Daniel. I wonder how much David Bohm's holographic theories of consciousness have exerted some quiet influence on Tse. I heard glimmers of it during the amazing section where Tse deals with strong physicalist points of view. Daniel, I am wondering where you come down on the determinate vs. indeterminate physicalism. There is something intriguing about Tse's agnosticism pertaining that debate. It opens up a lot of other interesting doors. I am also wonder what you think of the information vs. knowledge distinction particularly when talking about AI and LLMs. It seems to me like a convenient way to write off a lot of the complexities that are cropping up. At the same time, it is a productive move particularly if you are trying to develop an educational philosophy and response to AI.
I'm really glad you enjoyed it! r.e. determinate vs. indeterminate physicalism, I think my intuition leans to the latter, but on that (and on info vs. knowledge) I'll need to think more!
Thank you so much for conversations like this one with Peter Tse. I think there’s so much to learn from psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience that often goes unnoticed or under-appreciated within AI circles.
Thank you so much for listening, Scott! I'm really glad you enjoyed the conversation, and this is indeed one of my goals: I'm hoping the ML community continues to hear out and deeply engage with researchers from other fields like neuroscience, and I intend on dedicating episodes to bringing in those voices. Look out for more of this, and I always appreciate guest suggestions if you've got any :)
This is super interesting with so much to absorb! Thanks, Daniel, for doing this long interview. :)
Thanks so much for listening! Yes, lots for me to absorb as well—Professor Tse is so knowledgeable, and I think this barely scratched the surface 🙂
Great conversation, Daniel. I wonder how much David Bohm's holographic theories of consciousness have exerted some quiet influence on Tse. I heard glimmers of it during the amazing section where Tse deals with strong physicalist points of view. Daniel, I am wondering where you come down on the determinate vs. indeterminate physicalism. There is something intriguing about Tse's agnosticism pertaining that debate. It opens up a lot of other interesting doors. I am also wonder what you think of the information vs. knowledge distinction particularly when talking about AI and LLMs. It seems to me like a convenient way to write off a lot of the complexities that are cropping up. At the same time, it is a productive move particularly if you are trying to develop an educational philosophy and response to AI.
I'm really glad you enjoyed it! r.e. determinate vs. indeterminate physicalism, I think my intuition leans to the latter, but on that (and on info vs. knowledge) I'll need to think more!
She’s done a lot on cognitive and language development in kids, and now collaborates with computer scientists as well
Alison Gopnik, psychologist at Berkeley, gave a great talk at ACL. If you haven’t already interviewed her, I think she’d be a great guest.
Oh yes, she’s on my list! Unrelatedly, she has this wonderful essay on Hume: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/
Thank you so much for conversations like this one with Peter Tse. I think there’s so much to learn from psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience that often goes unnoticed or under-appreciated within AI circles.
Thank you so much for listening, Scott! I'm really glad you enjoyed the conversation, and this is indeed one of my goals: I'm hoping the ML community continues to hear out and deeply engage with researchers from other fields like neuroscience, and I intend on dedicating episodes to bringing in those voices. Look out for more of this, and I always appreciate guest suggestions if you've got any :)